California law enforcement moves to buy drones, draws controversy

The EFF and ACLU say drones would endanger civil liberties.

Since Congress passed legislation in February ordering the Federal Aviation Administration to fast-track the approval of unmanned aerial vehicles—more colloquially known as drones—for use by law enforcement agencies, police and sheriff departments across the country have been scrambling to purchase the smaller, unarmed cousins of the Predator and Reaper drones which carry out daily sorties over Afghanistan, Yemen, and other theaters of operation.

Alameda County in California has become one of the central battlegrounds over the introduction of drones to domestic police work. Earlier this year, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern raised the hackles of local civil libertarians (and there are quite a few of those in the county, which encompasses Berkeley and Oakland) by declaring his intention to purchase a drone to assist with “emergency response.” According to Ahern, Alameda Sheriff's personnel first tested a UAV in fall 2011 and gave a public demonstration of the machine's usefulness for emergency responses during the Urban Shield SWAT competition in late October.

Were Alameda County to purchase a drone, it would set a precedent in California, which has long been an innovator in law enforcement tactics: from SWAT teams (pioneered in Delano and Los Angeles) to anti-gang tactics such as civil injunctions. The first documented incident of a drone being used to make an arrest in the United States occurred in North Dakota in June 2011, when local police received assistance from an unarmed Predator B drone that belonged to US Customs and Border Protection. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration have also reportedly used drones for domestic investigations.

However, the Alameda County Sheriff will have to wait until next year for its drone proposal to even be considered by the County Board of Supervisors. In a rapid-fire sequence of events, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation succeeded in forcing the Board of Supervisors to pull a last-minute agenda item from the December 4th meeting that would have approved $31,646 in grant money from the California Emergency Management Administration for purchasing a UAV.

ACLU-Norcal and the EFF both accused Sheriff Ahern of trying to secure funding for the drone without public scrutiny. “Public policy shouldn't be made by stealth attack,” said ACLU-Norcal attorney Linda Lye. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Ahern denied trying to evade public scrutiny and claimed the UAV wouldn't be used for blanket surveillance, as feared by opponents. “This device is used for mission-specific incidents. We strive to gain the public's trust in everything we do, and I would never do anything of this nature that would destroy the public's trust beyond repair,” Ahern told the Chronicle.

Despite the sheriff's assurances that drones would be primarily used for emergency and disaster response, internal documents obtained by the EFF indicate sheriff department personnel have different conceptions of how they would use UAVs. A July 20th, 2012 memo written by Captain Tom Madigan of the Alameda County Sheriff elucidates potential uses for drones in emergency response, explosives disposal, search and rescue—and a range of policing uses that appear to be at the heart of the ACLU and EFF's concerns. The memo reads:

The Alameda County Tactical Commanders were consulted, a regional group of SWAT team commanders throughout the County of Alameda. A UAS would be valuable to assist with barricaded suspects, surveillance (investigative and tactical) perimeters, intelligence gathering, rough terrain, suspicious persons, large crowd control disturbances, etc.

“UAVs have unprecedented capabilities to infringe on our civil liberties,” said Trevor Timm, an attorney with the EFF. Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

The EFF and ACLU want a public dialogue over the use of drones by local law enforcement and seek to establish a set of guidelines that would protect individual privacy and restrict how drones could be used during domestic policing. The proposal will be taken up again by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in January.

Documents released earlier this week by the ACLU of Northern California show the Alameda County Sheriff already received bids for drones from Aeryon, Lockheed Martin, and ING.

Other California law enforcement agencies are eager to purchase drones. Documents obtained by the EFF in collaboration with the open records website Muckrock reveal the San Francisco Police Department had a $100,000 request to purchase a Remotely Piloted Vehicle rejected by the local Urban Area Security Initiative, a regional Homeland Security administrative agency. In San Diego, where the Border Patrol already operates several Predator B drones for reconnaissance along the US-Mexico frontier, County Sheriff William Gore announced his intention to purchase an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) earlier this week. Opposition to UAVs in San Diego has taken on unusual dimensions—on December 6th, artists affiliated with a University of California-San Diego gallery staged a drone crash in front of the main campus library to raise awareness about the unmanned vehicles' growing presence in quotidian life.

74 Reader Comments

Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

I've lived in areas where helicopter fly overs were a nightly routine for several hours. The only upside I see to UAV's handling surveillance is the sound of them won't keep me up all night having to listen to their engines pitch and whine while orbiting specific sectors of neighborhoods.

That said, i can see an upside to their use, but that does not outweigh the more than likely abuse of the downsides of them IMHO. Just another piece of tech changing how we live, and not necessarily for the better.

Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

“UAVs have unprecedented capabilities to infringe on our civil liberties,” said Trevor Timm, an attorney with the EFF. Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

Okay, ACLU, I normally support you, but in this case, you guys are going crazy.

Infrared radiation is just another form of EM radiation, much like light. Infrared is of a different wavelength, to be sure, but you cannot magically see through walls with infrared any more than you can see through them with your eyes - walls block way too much to see anything. You guys are watching too many Hollywood movies - these aren't magical x-ray goggles that allow you to see heat sources through walls like in Eraser, they're real world technology. They are handy, to be sure, but they can't spy on you in your bathroom. Heck, they can't see through -glass- reliably.

And yes, we can put facial recognition software or automatic liscense plate reader technology or whatever else in ANY SORT OF VIDEO TECHNOLOGY. IT DOES NOT MATTER. We can already track people via CCTV cameras anyway, which are perfectly legal; the drone just makes it easier to track suspects, as we can send a drone after them instead of a much more expensive (and obvious) helicopter.

The sheer amount of effort it would take to track everyone 24/7 means that there is no way that law enforcement can ever possibly do it. Its just not cost effective. So these concerns about drones being used in this way are utter nonsense.

I'm sorry, you guys need to not listen to the guys who have been eating lead paint.

This just isn't a big deal. It will save money and it doesn't unduly infringe on our liberties.

The expense of operating and maintaining helicopters inherently limits their use. Imagine the capabilities of such helicopters at a small fraction of the costs. The potential for misuse increases as the costs decrease.

Why is it that the response from law enforcement to privacy and civil liberty concerns seems to always be "Trust us, we wouldn't do that" rather than "With those concerns in mind, we have already introduced laws which will legally limit our use of this technology".

"Aside from the titanic potential for abuse, there are some people that actually want to retain whatever privacy we have left."

But you're on the internet and probably use sites like Google and likely use cell phones and credit cards. All this technology which you voluntarily use is a substantially greater cause of your loss of privacy than any involuntary loss of privacy caused by police surveillance of all kinds.

Well, I'm a pretty freedom conscious individual myself. Unfashionable, I know, but there you have it. There is a growing concern (amongst anyone actually paying attention) of the para-militarization of local police departments. A lot of military surplus is being bought up by even small town police departments, and then they all pose with their big guns in front of their new armored personnel carrier in full camo. Meanwhile, the town they work for hasn't even seen a murder in 10 years.

Then there is the asinine and endlessly corrupt Drug War. SWAT teams are being used to go in and arrest people for miniscule amounts of pot or on vague informant tips. Sometimes they flat out show up at the wrong house and wind up killing someone. No one ever gets punished, of course. We need this for what, exactly? You really think anyone at high levels of power really gives a damn if Joe Bob in Iowa gets high with some mother nature after work? BTW, you gotta love Colorado and Washington buzzing up in the Fed's bonnet on that front. :-)

A couple former cops I know got out because of the increasingly low quality and thuggish people taking up the badge. They tell me (and you can see it in media if you watch carefully) of a "Police versus everyone" environment instead of "versus the bad guys" to the point of almost cult-like attitudes.

So there is a basis for not wanting to hand people like that new tools like this when they are already abusing the ones they have. Some police chiefs and other leaders are openly and frequently talking about adding "non-lethal" weapons.

"But you're on the internet and probably use sites like Google and likely use cell phones and credit cards. All this technology which you voluntarily use is a substantially greater cause of your loss of privacy than any involuntary loss of privacy caused by police surveillance of all kinds."

A lot of military surplus is being bought up by even small town police departments, and then they all pose with their big guns in front of their new armored personnel carrier in full camo. Meanwhile, the town they work for hasn't even seen a murder in 10 years.

I'm not opposed to drones - I much prefer them to SWAT teams, for example - and I think that they have the potential to do a lot of good. But their use needs to be controlled because of course there is the potential for abuse. So I don't want them to be given to police with no strings attached. But I do want police to be able to use them in defined situations. So I'm glad the ACLU moved to stop the Board of Supervisors from funding these: I want them to put limits on the use of the drones before they give them to police.

The expense of operating and maintaining helicopters inherently limits their use. Imagine the capabilities of such helicopters at a small fraction of the costs. The potential for misuse increases as the costs decrease.

This is insane reasoning. The truth is that even if it cost us only as much to fly a drone as it does a helicopter, you still need someone there to pilot the drone - they are not autonomous, and that person is probably being paid $50k/year or more.

Moreover, making law enforcement more efficient is not a bad thing. It saves us all money.

Quote:

Why is it that the response from law enforcement to privacy and civil liberty concerns seems to always be "Trust us, we wouldn't do that" rather than "With those concerns in mind, we have already introduced laws which will legally limit our use of this technology".

There don't need to be special laws for them though.

Quote:

BTW, you gotta love Colorado and Washington buzzing up in the Fed's bonnet on that front. :-)

The only thing they really are is a protest against the law. Though I suspect if enough states passed such laws, we'd probably change the federal law in response.

Quote:

A couple former cops I know got out because of the increasingly low quality and thuggish people taking up the badge. They tell me (and you can see it in media if you watch carefully) of a "Police versus everyone" environment instead of "versus the bad guys" to the point of almost cult-like attitudes.

So clearly, the solution is to leave rather than to work towards improving the system. Good job.

Ever wonder why people in the military gun down civilians? Because people join the military to kill people. People like me, who don't like the idea of possibly shooting civilians, don't sign up as much. Do you think that has a negative impact on the quality of military personnel? On their psychology?

The truth is that there are basically three kinds of people who become cops: Those who do it as a job, those who do it because they like helping people, and those who do it because they want power. The last group cause virtually all the problems; the first group cause some but mostly just make honest mistakes. The middle group is the best group, and we want all our cops to be drawn from that pool. But its hard to weed out 1 and 3 sometimes, and there probably aren't enough of 2, so we'd need to draw from 1. 3 should never become cops, but it happens all too often.

But that doesn't mean all cops are bad. #3 are the baddies.

Quote:

So there is a basis for not wanting to hand people like that new tools like this when they are already abusing the ones they have. Some police chiefs and other leaders are openly and frequently talking about adding "non-lethal" weapons.

But abuses will always happen, forever. You cannot have a perfect system. People will be dicks sometimes.

Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

You're kidding, right? Do you really want some cop surveilling you every minute you're out of your house?

Don't bother replying - I get the idea that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I've got nothing to worry about. And really, I do trust the police implicitly. I'm absolutely sure that drone won't be soaring over the high school when the girls' swim team is practicing, or watching topless sunbathers in the privacy of their own yards.

You're kidding, right? Do you really want some cop surveilling you every minute you're out of your house?

Don't bother replying - I get the idea that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I've got nothing to worry about. And really, I do trust the police implicitly. I'm absolutely sure that drone won't be soaring over the high school when the girls' swim team is practicing, or watching topless sunbathers in the privacy of their own yards.

How many police officers does it take to observe ONE person all the time? I would guess that the answer is north of one, probably like three.

Its literally impossible for them to observe everyone all the time. We have CCTV cameras up everywhere and its still impossible to do it, even though those don't require anyone to be watching all the time, unlike UAVs, which require controllers.

Its just an inane, insane thing.

People already spy on sunbathers or girls swim teams. I'm not really worried about UAVs being used to do it, because guess what? Flying a UAV around costs money, and most police departments are pretty strapped for cash. They won't be terribly happy if you fly a UAV around all day for no reason.

You're kidding, right? Do you really want some cop surveilling you every minute you're out of your house?

Don't bother replying - I get the idea that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I've got nothing to worry about. And really, I do trust the police implicitly. I'm absolutely sure that drone won't be soaring over the high school when the girls' swim team is practicing, or watching topless sunbathers in the privacy of their own yards.

How many police officers does it take to observe ONE person all the time? I would guess that the answer is north of one, probably like three.

Its literally impossible for them to observe everyone all the time. We have CCTV cameras up everywhere and its still impossible to do it, even though those don't require anyone to be watching all the time, unlike UAVs, which require controllers.

Its just an inane, insane thing.

People already spy on sunbathers or girls swim teams. I'm not really worried about UAVs being used to do it, because guess what? Flying a UAV around costs money, and most police departments are pretty strapped for cash. They won't be terribly happy if you fly a UAV around all day for no reason.

I wasn't replying to you, but I should point out that it's only inane if you accept that if something bad is going on, more of the same is OK. The fact that perverts already leer at the girls' swim team doesn't make me happy to have more perverts doing it. And the fact that some government bureaucrat is watching me pick my nose at a red light doesn't mean I want some other bureaucrat watching me pick my nose in the privacy of my own back yard.

You can find good in relentless surveillance all you want, and accept every erosion of civil liberties in the name of law enforcement. What you are unlikely to succeed at is getting me to agree. Keep trying, though - I'm not immune to persuasion, but in this case it's unlikely.

Then there is the asinine and endlessly corrupt Drug War. SWAT teams are being used to go in and arrest people for miniscule amounts of pot or on vague informant tips. Sometimes they flat out show up at the wrong house and wind up killing someone. No one ever gets punished, of course. We need this for what, exactly?

This. Doesn't take a tinfoil hat to know that the primary function of domestic drones with be arresting people for drug offenses.

You're kidding, right? Do you really want some cop surveilling you every minute you're out of your house?

Don't bother replying - I get the idea that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I've got nothing to worry about. And really, I do trust the police implicitly. I'm absolutely sure that drone won't be soaring over the high school when the girls' swim team is practicing, or watching topless sunbathers in the privacy of their own yards.

Dude, if you haven't seen "Blue Thunder" yet, you should totally check it out.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the "if you're not doing anything wrong" argument, which I find as inane as you do. I've got two questions: 1) Why would the cops surveil me every minute I'm out of my house, and 2) If that's a good reason, what's to stop them if they're not using drones?

Timm noted that UAV-mounted cameras can be equipped with Forward Looking Infrared technology, which reads heat signatures through buildings, or intelligent video programs such as facial recognition software, which acts as a sort of automated license-plate reader for people.

I wasn't replying to you, but I should point out that it's only inane if you accept that if something bad is going on, more of the same is OK. The fact that perverts already leer at the girls' swim team doesn't make me happy to have more perverts doing it. And the fact that some government bureaucrat is watching me pick my nose at a red light doesn't mean I want some other bureaucrat watching me pick my nose in the privacy of my own back yard.

The problem is that you are being utterly paranoid. They simply cannot afford to have people sitting around watching you pick your nose in your backyard, or spying on the girl's swim team. The entire point is that it is insane to believe that they are even capable of doing so.

Quote:

You can find good in relentless surveillance all you want, and accept every erosion of civil liberties in the name of law enforcement. What you are unlikely to succeed at is getting me to agree. Keep trying, though - I'm not immune to persuasion, but in this case it's unlikely.

Of course not, because you aren't looking at it rationally. You are basing on beliefs - false ones - not facts.

How exactly is this going to increase surveillance? How? Explain? What they are doing is making it easier to:

1) Follow cars in high speed chases without helicopters.

2) Deploy air units faster, and at much lower cost, for following suspects.

3) Flying around over the woods to look for people who have cut down trees and are planting pot out in the freaking wilderness.

What, EXACTLY, changes here? What are you so paranoid about? CIVIL LIBERTIES is not an answer, nor is people spying on you. I've already explained how that is impractical, and how well it would play out in the real world. Cops are expected to get results, not sit around watching topless people all day; if you got caught doing that, you'd get disciplined or fired.

Quote:

This. Doesn't take a tinfoil hat to know that the primary function of domestic drones with be arresting people for drug offenses.

If you're planting pot on state or federal land, you deserve to get caught.

"But you're on the internet and probably use sites like Google and likely use cell phones and credit cards. All this technology which you voluntarily use is a substantially greater cause of your loss of privacy than any involuntary loss of privacy caused by police surveillance of all kinds."

The key word in your observation is "voluntarily".

Not only that but Google et al. don't track me, bro. My browsers have all sorts of goodies.

And those were from some time ago...my modern setup has a few more than those listed. You should only be allowed to track me if I explicitly give my consent for you to do so, or if you have a warrant from a judge.

Who's responsible when one of these crashes into the road and causes a traffic accident? Do we take the robot to court?

You take the operating department and the individual operator to court, like you would if you had a police PD crash and cause an accident.

It's like people turn off their brains when they hear 'drone' or something. We're talking about the teleoperated machinery, NOT YOU.

DNick wrote:

You can find good in relentless surveillance all you want, and accept every erosion of civil liberties in the name of law enforcement.

There's no erosion here. No rights are taken away, it's just existing capabilities are going to be cheaper and safer. The alternative, 'oh, keep them expensive and more dangerous' is just perverse.

Quote:

You're kidding, right? Do you really want some cop surveilling you every minute you're out of your house?

That's called going to work for some of us.

PeterWimsey wrote:

But their use needs to be controlled because of course there is the potential for abuse.

They should follow the rules for the manned device they're replacing. In this case, FAA rules for UAVs, use restrictions (minus man hours and the like) for surveillance helicopter usage. Nothing new needs to be added, at least on the oversight level. Agency internal rules do need to be written to make sure that operators get rest periods, etc.

"Aside from the titanic potential for abuse, there are some people that actually want to retain whatever privacy we have left."

But you're on the internet and probably use sites like Google and likely use cell phones and credit cards. All this technology which you voluntarily use is a substantially greater cause of your loss of privacy than any involuntary loss of privacy caused by police surveillance of all kinds.

The difference is that he chooses to use sites like Google, cell phones, and credit cards. He would not have a choice in being under constant police surveillance.

The difference is that he chooses to use sites like Google, cell phones, and credit cards. He would not have a choice in being under constant police surveillance.

Except he isn't under constant police surveillance unless he is a drug runner. The police simply don't have the manpower to track every person. Heck, they don't have the manpower to track every drug runner.

Quote:

It's also a hell of a lot more expensive when they choose to abuse it.

There is no logic in this argument.

Why would we use worse, more expensive, more dangerous technology when we can use cheaper and more efficient technology?

There is no difference in what they can do with it, and its not like following someone around in a UAV is exactly inconspicuous.

When police started to use battling rams to break into houses faster, bad guys started to reinforce their doors with steel plates. With fingerprints, gloves. DNA brought torching the places. Phone surveilance burner phones. Whatever new technique and equipment cop gets, bad guys think of countermeasure.

So it wont take long for them to design a countermeasure. UAVs price has come down. We might see first UAV dogfights in the skys of LA within 5 years of cops getting theirs. And when the crooks get their anti air weapons against UAVs they might just as well use them against cop copters.

I think the basic issue here is, people don't want to be surprised by new ways the police can charge them with crimes. That's why they're asking for public dialogue and some set of known guidelines and procedures for the use of these drones:

the story wrote:

The EFF and ACLU want a public dialogue over the use of drones by local law enforcement and seek to establish a set of guidelines that would protect individual privacy and restrict how drones could be used during domestic policing.

Here is a dumbass example I came up with after a moment's thought. In my city, there is actually a municipal code making it illegal to leave a car parked at the curb in the same spot for more than 24 hours. You can get a ticket for doing that, with a fine of $70 or so. But my city is fairly small and doesn't have many parking problems, so the way it really works is, if you leave a crappy old car in one spot for a month, and a tire goes flat, and it becomes an eyesore covered with leaves and bird droppings and whatnot, then some neighbor complains and a cop comes out and writes a ticket. If the car doesn't move within a few days, a tow truck shows up and hauls it away.

Now imagine my city or county get a drone and, finding it not very busy with more pressing duties, somehow automate the process of collecting parked car license plate and position data, and begin hitting us all with tickets on the 25th hour of being parked in one spot. We're not scofflaws, or at least we didn't think we were. But this sudden 'enforcement to closer tolerances' would make us look that way, and would be a very unpleasant surprise to us.

So public discourse and a set of guidelines would give us a better opportunity to know how to stay within the expected tolerances of legal behavior.

"Aside from the titanic potential for abuse, there are some people that actually want to retain whatever privacy we have left."

But you're on the internet and probably use sites like Google and likely use cell phones and credit cards. All this technology which you voluntarily use is a substantially greater cause of your loss of privacy than any involuntary loss of privacy caused by police surveillance of all kinds.

substantially greater? google is using the info to improve their products and target ads to the user, the user therefore has the options of how to craft googles service and the option to or not to use it. There is an argument that says the police drones will increase citizens security, but that is not proven and that is also not the citizens choice. These drones can be used for WHO KNOWS what purpose.

When police started to use battling rams to break into houses faster, bad guys started to reinforce their doors with steel plates. With fingerprints, gloves. DNA brought torching the places. Phone surveilance burner phones. Whatever new technique and equipment cop gets, bad guys think of countermeasure.

Except, of course, most of the time, the door still goes down, the thieves still leave fingerprints, DNA is not so easily gotten rid of (and can be found from all sorts of places), burner phones still leave traces, ect.

The truth is that criminals AREN'T smart, that's why they're criminals. They get caught all the time in readily avoidable ways because its very difficult to cover every base, and with DNA, all you have to do is leave a drop of blood or a bit of hair.

Quote:

So it wont take long for them to design a countermeasure. UAVs price has come down. We might see first UAV dogfights in the skys of LA within 5 years of cops getting theirs. And when the crooks get their anti air weapons against UAVs they might just as well use them against cop copters.

Uh, no. If you even tried to do something like that, you'd be so very, very, very dead.

People really need to get a grip on reality. I understand you're Californian, but seriously.

Quote:

These drones can be used for WHO KNOWS what purpose.

I'm going to go ahead and say, the same stuff they use aerial surveillance for already?

Here is a dumbass example I came up with after a moment's thought. In my city, there is actually a municipal code making it illegal to leave a car parked at the curb in the same spot for more than 24 hours. You can get a ticket for doing that, with a fine of $70 or so. But my city is fairly small and doesn't have many parking problems, so the way it really works is, if you leave a crappy old car in one spot for a month, and a tire goes flat, and it becomes an eyesore covered with leaves and bird droppings and whatnot, then some neighbor complains and a cop comes out and writes a ticket. If the car doesn't move within a few days, a tow truck shows up and hauls it away.

Now imagine my city or county get a drone and, finding it not very busy with more pressing duties, somehow automate the process of collecting parked car license plate and position data, and begin hitting us all with tickets on the 25th hour of being parked in one spot. We're not scofflaws, or at least we didn't think we were. But this sudden 'enforcement to closer tolerances' would make us look that way, and would be a very unpleasant surprise to us.

So public discourse and a set of guidelines would give us a better opportunity to know how to stay within the expected tolerances of legal behavior.

Quote:

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.Abraham Lincoln

So right now, this law your described is not being enforced as it is on the book. In reality, there is a different set of law in operation, unless someone is somehow "disfavored," then they got book throw at them. I am not sure that's a status quo that's worth preserving: bad laws being keep on the book because they are only selectively enforced.

As a practical matter, UAV is not the most effective tool for parking enforcement. More and more police patrol cars are being outfitted with GPS and license plate readers. (So they can be alerted about wanted/reported stolen cars) It's much easier to read the license plate on the road at ground level. (Less chance of trees/building getting in the sight line, etc.) There are no reason your town can not use regular police patrol car/parking enforcement cart, etc. to do as you described more effectively.

Fear not, citizens! These liberty-guarding pro-security helper vehicles are just here to keep you all safe! Nothing could be more American. In fact, we're going to throw an America-party to welcome them! To join in the fun, please assume the party escort submission position.

The biggest problem I have with the whole drone concept is reliability. The FAA and other bodies are extremely careful to make sure manned aircraft are maintained so they don't fall out of the air. Can we count on the same level of control over drone maintenance?

Because they are cheap and small, they are probably going to spend more time in the air, and at lower altitudes, than other spotter aircraft. This means that having one drop out of the sky and crash into something fragile -- like a human -- is far more likely unless maintenance is rigorously audited.